What better symbol of the bull****....

On Oct 14, 8:06*pm, Scott Seidman wrote:
Dave LaCourse wrote :



On 14 Oct 2008 22:46:37 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

Yeah. *Maybe hypnosis can help you unsuppress the memory

You really disappoint me lately, Scott. *I thought you were better
than the cheap shots you hve been taking lately. *I guess going wimpy
and apologizing to you-know-who makes a man that way.

"Oh, please, don't cause me any trouble, oh please, I don't want any
trouble......" * Sheeeeeeesh. *Gimme a break.

Dave

Oh come on, Dave. *I thought that was pretty funny, especially with the
little winky thing next to it.

I don't care who's diddling who. *I do know that when a congressman gets
caught, the traditional early response is applause from the floor when
the involved party gets caught, unless the act was homosexual. *As to
this latest guy, so he's doing to his aide what Bush has been doing to us
all these years.

But the page *was* under age, wasn't he (she?)? At the very least
he should have been censured.

If the Republicans had roped in the Idiot in Chief, even if just after
the 2006 elections, they'd still be a viable party. *They didn't and
we're likely to be stuck with a very powerful Dem party for a decade. *I
think this is OK, but I think we'd have a better government if there were
two viable parties. *

Yes, a lot better. And speaking of roping in, the Dems should
consider doing that to Ms. Pelosi: that pre-bailout vote speech was
over the top. No, I don't believe that it really affected Rep votes,
but it did show just how deaf Washington pols like her have become.

On Oct 14, 7:41*pm, wrote:

Oops, nope. *He did get the page drunk and have sex with him. *But it
wasn't "rape" in the criminal sense. *OTOH, it certainly was conduct
that should have garnered much more than a "naughty boy" from the House.
If it were today and a Republican Congressman did the same thing with a
female page, I'd bet _BIG_ that you'd in with other "liberals" yelling
and screaming about what a scumbag he was, suggesting it was "rape" or
nearly so. *Gerry Studds was a sorry piece of **** and embarrassment to
Congress, but, at least as far as is publicly known, he wasn't a rapist.

HTH,
R

Agreed. And Congress should have stripped him of committee
assignments, censored him, and thrown him out on his ass if possible.
Ditto with the Dem with the icebox full of cash.

And Delay should be in jail too. And Louie, what you do with this kind
of **** is not truthful in terms of how most people understand the
term. Its that old means/ends thingy again.

Dave

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:41:26 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 17:27:44 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Dave LaCourse wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Dave LaCourse wrote:
Studds, a Democrat FORCIBLY RAPED a male page. ...

... Gerry Studds never did
any such thing. Once again you're lying Louie.

Studds got a male page drunk and had sex with him. That is rape. End
of that story.

You're a liar, Louie. You post outrageous lies here about John
Kerry and now about Gerry Studds. If you had any shame, you
silly old fool, you'd be ashamed of yourself.

Oops, nope. He did get the page drunk and have sex with him. But it
wasn't "rape" in the criminal sense. OTOH, it certainly was conduct
that should have garnered much more than a "naughty boy" from the House.
If it were today and a Republican Congressman did the same thing with a
female page, I'd bet _BIG_ that you'd in with other "liberals" yelling
and screaming about what a scumbag he was, suggesting it was "rape" or
nearly so. Gerry Studds was a sorry piece of **** and embarrassment to
Congress, but, at least as far as is publicly known, he wasn't a rapist.

HTH,
R

He "had sex" with a male page who was 16. That is statutory rape. If
the kid was drunk and could not give his consent, that is rape,
period.

Gerry Studds raped a male page and made sexual advances at several
more.

Dave

On Oct 15, 2:40*pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:

He "had sex" with a male page who was 16. *That is statutory rape. *If
the kid was drunk and could not give his consent, that is rape,
period.

Gerry Studds raped a male page and made sexual advances at several
more.

Dave

You will apparently never learn that making such allegations about
people wont do any good at all. I have no idea whether there is any
truth to them, but I know that you have made many other allegations,
including completely unfounded allegations about me, so I would tend
to disbelieve anything you wrote anyway, and presumably others will
too.

Do you consider making such allegations "helping your fellow man?".

On Oct 15, 5:40*am, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:41:26 -0500, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 17:27:44 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Dave LaCourse wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Dave LaCourse wrote:
Studds, a Democrat FORCIBLY RAPED a male page. ...

... Gerry Studds never did
any such thing. Once again you're lying Louie.

Studds got a male page drunk and had sex with him. *That is rape. *End
of that story.

You're a liar, Louie. You post outrageous lies here about John
Kerry and now about Gerry Studds. If you had any shame, you
silly old fool, you'd be ashamed of yourself.

Oops, nope. *He did get the page drunk and have sex with him. *But it
wasn't "rape" in the criminal sense. *OTOH, it certainly was conduct
that should have garnered much more than a "naughty boy" from the House.
If it were today and a Republican Congressman did the same thing with a
female page, I'd bet _BIG_ that you'd in with other "liberals" yelling
and screaming about what a scumbag he was, suggesting it was "rape" or
nearly so. *Gerry Studds was a sorry piece of **** and embarrassment to
Congress, but, at least as far as is publicly known, he wasn't a rapist.

HTH,
R

He "had sex" with a male page who was 16. *That is statutory rape. *If
the kid was drunk and could not give his consent, that is rape,
period.

Gerry Studds raped a male page and made sexual advances at several
more.

Dave- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well I agree he should have been censored, Democrats are supposed to
stick to the Bimbos, male pages are reserved for Republicans. Its a
joke Louie, a joke. Honestly. kind of. :-))))

dave

On Oct 15, 8:26*pm, DaveS wrote:

Well I agree he should have been censored, Democrats are supposed to
stick to the Bimbos, male pages are reserved for Republicans. Its a
joke Louie, a joke. Honestly. kind of. :-))))

dave

That´s a bit inconsistent don´t you think? Painting pictures of people
engaged in monkey fellatio, or shagging diseased sheep is fine with
you, but you think Democrats and Republicans should be censored for
turning over a new page?

On Oct 15, 11:30*am, wrote:
On Oct 15, 8:26*pm, DaveS wrote:

Well I agree he should have been censored, Democrats are supposed to
stick to the Bimbos, male pages are reserved for Republicans. Its a
joke Louie, a joke. Honestly. kind of. :-))))

dave

That´s a bit inconsistent don´t you think? Painting pictures of people
engaged in monkey fellatio, or shagging diseased sheep is fine with
you, but you think Democrats and Republicans should be censored for
turning over a new page?

Not "people" Mike, YOU. I still think a series of paintings of you
blowing a wide variety of monkeys, chimps etc., dressed in your sari,
would sell like hotcakes. Of course there are your fans, on both sides
of the Atlantic, but also sales of the collectable trading card
versions, sales in the Third World, vending machine sales in truckstop
restrooms, etc. Fame Mike, Fame.

On Oct 16, 10:20*am, DaveS wrote:


That´s a bit inconsistent don´t you think? Painting pictures of people
engaged in monkey fellatio, or shagging diseased sheep is fine with
you, but you think Democrats and Republicans should be censored for
turning over a new page?

Not "people" Mike, YOU. I still think a series of paintings of you
blowing a wide variety of monkeys, chimps etc., dressed in your sari,
would sell like hotcakes. Of course there are your fans, on both sides
of the Atlantic, but also sales of the collectable trading card
versions, sales in the Third World, vending machine sales in truckstop
restrooms, etc. Fame Mike, Fame.

You are simply a nasty dumb loony.

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 09:54:19 -0500, wrote:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10...s-sex-scandal/

No "first page" mention of it on cnn's website, yet when Foley was in
trouble, it was front and center for days.

I think you've become a very good symbol of incessant childish
whining.

On Oct 20, 8:16*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 09:54:19 -0500, wrote:
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10...-foley-seat-ge...

No "first page" mention of it on cnn's website, yet when Foley was in
trouble, it was front and center for days.

I think you've become a very good symbol of incessant childish
whining.

Sorting
Dave